Eight lessons learned from the 2012-2013 Awards Season
Let's keep Washington politics out of Oscar, shall we?
Why did one of these Oscar winners come out looking better than the other when all was said and done?
Are you a fan of Awards Campaign?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
An unlikely awards season ended where it started.I had the pleasure of attending the first public screening of "Argo" at the Telluride Film Festival in September. Five months later, "Argo" pulled off a historical comeback to win the Best Picture prize many of us predicted it would take that sunny Labor day weekend. In the half a year between those moments, Hollywood managed to release six $100 million-plus-grossing best picture nominees (unthinkable at the beginning of the season) and make past controversies such as Melissa Leo's infamous for your consideration ads seem as inconsequential as a playground fight between two 5-year-olds. This season was serious and a battle of mammoth egos that won't long be forgotten. Thankfully, however, there are always lessons for pundits, studio executives, their likely still-stressed-out consultants and, most importantly, the powers at be at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Open up your books to page one, students, and let's review...
Related
-
Ben Affleck's 'Argo' named Best Picture of the year at the 85th annual Academy Awards
Jack Nicholson presents the honor with First Lady Michelle Obama
-
'Les Misérables' star Anne Hathaway dreamed a dream that came true at the Oscars
No, really. 'It came true.'
-
Jennifer Lawrence once again proves why she's freakin' awesome
A rare great backstage Q&A
-
Best and Worst of the 85th Academy Awards: Seth MacFarlane, Adele, Michelle Obama
Plus: What did you think was the biggest upset of the night?
Politics is too nasty a game for Oscar
It's been a few years since the Best Picture race turned as nasty as this one did. Whether it was the bi-partisan criticism from U.S. Senators about the torture scenes in "Zero Dark Thirty," which conveniently occurred just as the film was getting traction (and from politicians who hadn't even seen the movie), and then (dear lord) an investigation into "Thirty's" access to the CIA (which amazingly ended the day after the Oscars), or anger from a Connecticut congressman over misrepresenting his state's votes for the 13th amendment in "Lincoln" or Canadians' continuing lack of satisfaction with how their contributions to "Argo" were depicted, the politics of Washington had way too much influence in the race. Most damaging was the press release, er, letter from Sen. Fienstein (D-CA) and Sen. McCain (R-AZ) that effectively scuttled "Thirty's" Best Picture hopes. "Lincoln" was already in trouble when its controversy started and most Canadians are rolling their eyes at anyone who thinks they didn't get enough credit in the eventual Best Picture winner. Nevertheless, scuttlebutt about competing campaigns being involved in each others' "issues" made the entire race feel like a presidential election instead of an artistic endeavor. Sadly, where there is smoke there is likely fire in many of the "he did this" "they did that" accusations, but bringing elected political officials into the mix was just ridiculous. They've got enough to fix in Washington rather than have their Hollywood donors drag them into this circus. Let's hope this isn't a sign of things to come.
Oscar's Best Director category may need some tweaking
In any awards situation there will always be someone on the outside looking in. The Best Picture field has already been expanded to up to 10 nominees (more on that later), but more than ever, too many deserving directors were left in the cold. In other years, Ben Affleck, Kathryn Bigelow, Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson, Paul Thomas Anderson and even Tom Hooper could have easily been nominated by their peers. Now, no one is saying there should be 10 nominees, but the ability to honor up to seven or eight seems like a fair compromise, no?
Don't release in December if you want to win
It's always somewhat cyclical, but the last Best Picture winner released in December was "Million Dollar Baby" almost 10 years ago. Yes, you can snag a nomination by debuting in December. History shows us, however, that the last six winners opened in June, September, October or November. At one point, revealing yourself to voters "last" was seen as a potentially winning strategy. Many other factors came into play this season, but "Zero Dark Thirty," "Les Miserables," "Django Unchained" and "The Impossible" arguably were harmed by the late dates. First, it can provide little time to battle any potential criticisms or controversies thrown against your film (see "Zero Dark Thirty"). Second, it hurts a film that really needs strong word of mouth within the industry (see "The Impossible"). So, unless you've got a box office slam dunk no matter what ("Les Miserables"), if you can't make a November date it may just make more sense to push to the following season.
News From Our Partners
-
'The World's End' Trailer: Pints, Pals, and Killer Robots!
Francis Ford Coppola Directing New Italian-American Saga
'Don Jon' Trailer: Joseph-Gordon Levitt and Scarlett Johansson Go Jersey
-
The Telefile - Critics' Choice Television Awards 2013: Nominees Announced
The Telefile - TV on DVD: Tuesday, May 21, 2013
The Telefile - Veep: The Episode's Best Insults
-
Charlotte Robinson: Somer Bingham Talks LGBT Issues and Life After The Real L Word (AUDIO)
PHOTOS: Has Ellen Had Enough Of LA?
Jennifer Aniston On 'Friends' Reunion: 'We All Miss Working Together'
-
'Man Of Steel': Is Zod Superman's Khan?
New 'Man of Steel' Trailer: Watch Now!
'The Hangover': Retracing The Success Of A Few Crazy Nights
-
'Metallica Through the Never' Trailer: Angry Mobs and "Master of Puppets"
'Timecop' Being Remade, As All Movies Eventually Must
'We're The Millers' Red Band NSFW Trailer: Jennifer Aniston and Jason Sudeikis Smuggle Drugs
-
Hear This: You don’t have to know the words to have fun with this Stone Temple Pilots single
Watch This: Ronin is a triumph of crime-flick economy
Cannes Film Festival: Cannes, Day Seven: J.C. Chandor makes good, Nicolas Winding Refn goes bad, and Claire Denis gets ugly
-
Total Recall: Bradley Cooper's Best Movies
Parental Guidance: Epic and Beautiful Creatures
Comic Book Movies You Can Watch Online
-
Justin Bieber's 'Baby' Is Highest-Certified Single in History, But His Monkey Is No Longer His
Son Ho Young's Girlfriend Found Dead
Listen to The-Dream Collaborate With Beyonce on 'Turnt'
Get Instant Alerts on Awards Campaign
Latest Posts
-
Working on already infamous 'Gun' is 'so much fun'Wednesday, May 22, 2013
-
But will you care at the end?Wednesday, May 22, 2013
-
J.T. on a 'mission to be continually inspired'Tuesday, May 21, 2013
-
T Bone Burnett spills the beans...a bit earlyMonday, May 20, 2013
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signupsijmen
February 27, 2013 at 4:57AM EST Reply to CommentThe best picture nomination voting process isn't working? Really? I thought it just worked tremendously well this year. Some very succesfull, some art house films, even a great foreign only movie buffs saw, all had only one thing in common: they were all great! I loved the list!
HoustonRufus Agreed. There is always going to be a film or two that doesn't make the cut that will inspire people to want to tweak the process.
February 27, 2013 at 11:06AM ESTKBJr. Totally agreed. I thought it was a superb BP slate.
February 27, 2013 at 11:44AM ESTjetenreiro
February 27, 2013 at 9:12AM EST Reply to CommentI agree with you re: guilds sucking the life out of the Oscars, but if the Oscars move their dates up the Guilds will simply follow suit. If you have the Oscars January 1 a) no one will watch them and b) there won't be enough time to judge/watch the movies.
Seb
February 27, 2013 at 10:07AM EST Reply to CommentI cannot fathom people anymore. The director category was completely inspired and unique this year. Everyone moans and cries about how the Oscars don't step outside their comfort zone, and the first year they really do, people have a problem with it.
Zeitlin and Haneke were completely inspired nominations on the Academy's behalf, and I applaud them for their bold decision to nominate them.
Sorry, I guess I'm in the minority, but anyone could have directed Argo, it was nothing special or unique and I cannot fathom how on earth people think the film itself, or Affleck should have been nominated/won for it.
Bigelow deserved a nomination, I will say that, but I will take her snub if it means more inspired, independent choices in the future.
Joe7827 "Everyone moans and cries about how the Oscars don't step outside their comfort zone, and the first year they really do, people have a problem with it."
February 27, 2013 at 10:44AM ESTExactly!
HoustonRufus Agreed. I also think the article contradicts itself. We had suspense in the director category most likely because the oscars started nominating before the director's guild announced it's winners. So are the guilds the problem or is the director's branch a problem. My answer: neither. It worked out just fine. All five of the nominees were worthy, in my opinion, as was Affleck, Bigelow, Anderson, etc. But there can only be five.
February 27, 2013 at 11:10AM ESTJoe7827
February 27, 2013 at 10:09AM EST Reply to Comment"Oscar's best director category may need some tweaking."
No! I still don't understand why the director's branch keeps getting flak about this year's nominees. Yes, "Argo" is an incredibly well-directed film and the Director category was obsolete once it became the frontrunner. But can you honestly say that nominating Haneke and Zeitlin was a mistake on their part? And would it really have been a triumph if they nominated Hooper, as you suggest? Look - there were simply an extraordinary number of great directorial achievements this year. Someone was going to get snubbed.
murphy I can certainly say that nominating Zeitlin was a huge error. For one, I thought "Beasts of the Southern Wild" was atrocious, an offensive arty wankfest. He has a good eye and did get some good performances out of a couple of non-professional actors, however, as a storyteller he was very weak. His film left far too many things unexplained (the "medicine", why FEMA doesn't chase down the group of people that just ran off and took a number of small children with them, what are the creatures in the end and where do they go after Hushpuppy sends them away, why do they leave the Bathtub after Hushpuppy's dad dies, why aren't they charged with property damage and possibly manslaughter when they blow up a freakin' levy and flood an industrial area)and his environment never approaches any sort of believability that he was obviously going for. I thought the movie and the director was a failure as a whole. Even if Affleck didn't get nominated; Bigelow, Anderson, Hooper, Batmantanglij were all far more deserving than an obvious one-hit wonder who will grow to be just as much an embarassment to the Academy as Lee Daniels has turned out to be.
February 27, 2013 at 1:53PM ESTJoe7827
February 27, 2013 at 10:20AM EST Reply to CommentAnd... I don't buy that the best picture nomination voting process isn't working. Were "Lincoln" and "Les Miserables" not populist movies? I certainly know a lot of non-movie-buff friends who saw them. Were you upset just because "Skyfall" didn't make it? Maybe I'm biased the other way, since I wasn't a big fan of "Skyfall", but maybe voters just didn't think it was a great movie. I don't think the voting change is to blame, either; it just wasn't an Oscar movie. What was that you were saying about fitting a square peg in a round hole?
murphy My problem with the current Best Picture nominating process is not that some movies still don't get into the race (I loved "Skyfall" but was certainly not offended that it didn't get nominated) but that the chances are increased that many truly bad movies do get the honor. I'll take a few snubs in exchange for useless claptrap like "The Blind Side" and "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" never seeing the light of day in a prestigious race.
February 27, 2013 at 1:59PM ESTJoe7827 Some people actually think those movies are good, you know.
February 27, 2013 at 2:54PM ESTmurphy Let's not get hyperbolic here. Nobody thinks "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" was good. :-)
February 27, 2013 at 4:24PM ESTB
February 27, 2013 at 10:31AM EST Reply to Comment"but the ability to honor up to seven or eight seems like a fair compromise, no? "
Uh, no...let's just keep Best Director the way it is. It's a competition for a reason, and it's the highest honor for a reason: it's tough to get in.
Guy Lodge
February 27, 2013 at 10:35AM EST Reply to CommentI don't see why the Best Director category needs tweaking or expanding. Five notable, acclaimed achievements were nominated. (Seriously, keeping personal preference out of it, were any of them patently unworthy of a nomination?) Inevitably, a number of notable, acclaimed achievements weren't. It's the nature of the game, and it happens every year in every category. Tough luck.
And I don't see why Skyfall, good film that it is, is such an inarguable achievement that the Best Picture system must be deemed some sort of failure for not including it. (After all, BAFTA, which employs a different voting system, didn't nominate it either.) I thought this year's high-grossing field struck a pretty perfect balance between art and commerce -- what more do people want, honestly? So, the Academy doesn't go nuts for franchise entries and generally prefers individual properties. Is that such a problem?
HoustonRufus Cosign.
February 27, 2013 at 11:12AM ESTMatt Agreed with all of this.
February 27, 2013 at 12:05PM ESTMatthew Starr I don't think the problem is the system, it's the actual voters. We're never going to be happy with the results because the majority of voters are just so out of touch. If they left the voting to the Steven Soderbergh's and Jessica Chastain's of the membership I think the results would be a lot more acceptable. Instead we have people voting like that guy Scott Feinberg posted an article about who said he didn't want to vote for Anna Karenina's production design because he didn't like the movie.
February 27, 2013 at 12:52PM ESTMykill I agree as well. Director does not need to have more than 5 nominees. If anything, I would like to see the Best Picture go back to just 5 nominees as well, but I don't think anything they nominated this year was a bad choice. I don't want to see big blockbusters automatically nominated for best picture just because they made the most money, unless they actually earned their inclusion by being one of the best pictures of the year.
February 27, 2013 at 1:01PM ESTHoustonRufus But, Matthew, how do you know Soderbergh or Chastain wouldn't vote the same way? They're both incredibly gifted artists, but who's to say they wouldn't also have some twitchy bias that influences their voting? I just don't know how you eliminate variances like that, since human nature is so hard to predict or pin down, especially when so many forces are at play re: art and film. Any group of people that large is going to have it's share of baffling decision making.
February 27, 2013 at 1:06PM ESTHoustonRufus *its
February 27, 2013 at 1:07PM ESTMatthew Starr Well you bring up one important point that coincides with my point. The voting membership of the Academy is just way too large. It needs to be cut down. If you directed, edited or scored your last film twenty years ago I don't think you should be voting.
February 27, 2013 at 1:26PM ESTMy gut tells me if we removed those voters and relied on people working today we would see more winners like Emmanuelle Riva, Joaquin Phoenix and guys like Roger Deakins and Clint Mansell. These voters would be more likely to vote for the best work in the category as opposed to their favorite film in the category.
Levi I agree completely! The "let's fix it" people will always, no matter what, be with us. Unfortunately.
February 27, 2013 at 4:06PM ESTEvan Bravo, Guy. Not to mention that the BP selection process is only moderately different than it was in 2009/2010. There is slightly less redistributing of votes, but both systems relied heavily on #1 votes.
February 27, 2013 at 6:50PM ESTEven more, I don't see why we think that having more involvement of lower choice votes would have helped Skyfall get in over other films that were in contention and are more in the Academy's wheelhouse, such as The Impossible, The Master, Moonrise Kingdom, or (if Kris was correct), The Intouchables.
The Dude
February 27, 2013 at 10:47AM EST Reply to CommentIn hindsight it's surprising it took that long for politicians to get involved in the Oscar race: most of the movies involved are products of big studios owned by major corporations.
And of course, those major corporations also own many politicians.
I think this is only the beginning, and will get worse later on.
The directing category is fine.
I agree with your 5th point, but not because of the "we need more blockbusters" non-sense, but rather because the current system rewards the ELIC types of movies that only have niche appeal. 10 is a fine number.
I agree with you on the other points.
Joe7827 For every "Extremely Loud", there's a "Tree of Life". For every "Blind Side", there's a "Serious Man". None of these would have any sort of chance except in the current voting system. I'll take it.
February 27, 2013 at 11:02AM ESTBy the way, I was under the impression that it wasn't "Blind Side", but "Winter's Bone" that led to the 5+ change?
The Dude I think you're confusing my point; what I'm complaining about is this new system of the last two years that overvalues #1 votes.
February 27, 2013 at 1:40PM ESTThe Tree of Life would have gotten in with the 2009/2010 system, I doubt ELIC would.
Joe7827 You're right that I got the two voting systems confused. Although I'd still argue that movies like "The Tree of Life" and "Amour" benefited greatly from #1 votes, and (Director nominations or not) would've had trouble getting in with the 2009/2010 system. Of course, I would've said the same thing about "A Serious Man".
February 27, 2013 at 2:51PM ESTFull disclosure: I liked "Extremely Loud" and "The Blind Side", and I think it's wonderful that those types of movies are respresented. I also liked "The Tree of Life" and "A Serious Man". Why is one required to hate one type over the other? Variety is key.
Kmarko
February 27, 2013 at 11:08AM EST Reply to CommentWhat was wrong with Hathaway's reaction? Seemed happy to me. Sheesh.
Joe
February 27, 2013 at 11:08AM EST Reply to CommentCan Greg just stop writing for this blog? Ever since he joined, I've stopped coming here as often because I almost never agree with what he has to say and his pieces seem not very well thought out and researched.
For example, his points on the best director and best picture races needing fixing. Maybe it's just that I disagree, but I think anyone who knows anything about movies and the Oscars should have had a great appreciation for the way best director turned out, even if their favourite was snubbed. Furthermore, it's just stupid to say best picture voting isn't working and isn't populist enough when 6 (almost 7) of them grossed over $100 million! Also, I don't remember Kate Winslet getting any flack for her Mildred Pierce speeches. And she wasn't even present at the SAG ceremony when she won for it!
Kristopher Tapley So let me get this straight. You only want to go to a blog with writers who offer up opinions with which you agree? And simply not reading writers you don't particularly enjoy isn't good enough? That's unfortunate.
February 27, 2013 at 1:27PM ESTJoe I have no problem reading blogs that voice opinions with which I disagree (for example, Sasha Stone's). I don't always agree with what you and Guy have to say either, but I can always see your point of view. The problem is disagree with Greg almost ALL the time, and almost everything seems lazily done and ill thought out. I hardly ever read them anymore, and they don't seem to fit with the excellent writing from others on this site. That's the point I was trying to make.
February 27, 2013 at 4:14PM ESTKristopher Tapley Well I'm sure your criticisms are taken to heart. And you are, of course, free to not read and, therefore, not comment on any writer that so rubs you wrong.
February 27, 2013 at 5:40PM ESTJonnybon
February 27, 2013 at 11:31AM EST Reply to CommentI'd wager a bet Skyfall placed in 13th, after Moonrise, Impossible and Master, and I don't think the nomination process needs fixing.
vladdy
February 27, 2013 at 12:59PM EST Reply to CommentThe Best Picture nomination voting process is working brilliantly. Nine of the best films made around the world were nominated for Best Picture this year. I'm not sure there has ever been a better slate--not a dog among them. The Oscars gained some serious credibility this year with this list. The Blind Side, Extremely Loud, War Horse, and other mediocrities (or worse) were nowhere to be seen. Just nine films that are likely future classics. Everyone at your website (which I love) is always complaining about this category--it makes no sense. And Skyfall doesn't need a Best Picture nomination. Neither does a Harry Potter film. These movies are popcorn movies to be enjoyed and not though about. As for the Director category, it was fine too. People nominated the directors they wanted to nominate. If they all went "oops" when they saw who was left out, maybe they will think harder when nominating next year's group.
Lars
February 27, 2013 at 1:06PM EST Reply to CommentSorry, when did Hathaway win best ACTRESS this year in the Golden Globe? It is SUPPORTING ACTRESS!
And no, the system is fine for what it is (directing or best picture-wise). Even "Amour" was nominated, and that was inspired.
BD
February 27, 2013 at 1:22PM EST Reply to CommentSeems a little unnecessary to bring back the BP voting system change discussion on the year that actually had the best nominees if you compare them to other three years the more than five nominees systems have been in place. No Blind Sides, War Horses or Extremely Louds in sight, and Amour actually made it in. Even Les Miz had far more support than those three films did, which I asume is the easy choice of "what should they have bumped to put Skyfall in" (or at least it was my choice).
And the best director point...please...that doesn't need any fixing, it's fine as it is. What needs fixing is the Academy's membership...
And as somebody already corrected you, Anne Hathaway won Sup. Actress at the Globes. And yes, she was a mess and brought back memories of Kate Winslet. Learn from Julianne Moore and her Game Change run girls...
American Jedi
February 27, 2013 at 3:00PM EST Reply to CommentI don't think it's fair or rational to say that Anne Hathaway should "learn the lesson" that she should have acted more suprised when she won.
First of all, the criticism is selective and personal to her for some reason. Daniel Day Lewis also didn't seem remotely surprised by his win and yet I don't see Greg or anyone else criticizing Lewis. Anne Hathaway had just as much right to be un-surprised by her win as Lewis was with his own, because those two were the only sure thing "locks" of the night. So I guess it's okay that he accepted his award very casually and spent most of his time onstage making jokes, but Hathaway is an ingrate because her sober and straightforward thank you speech wasn't "from the heart" enough? I don't like it.
Aside from all that, the criticism is ridiculous if you really think it through. The message boils down to: don't react naturally, don't react honestly. Pretend to be something you aren't. It would be nice if you could conjure up a few tears even though you don't really feel it like that, because we'd prefer a telegenic false moment to a more ordinary true moment.
Danny Thank you, American Jedi. I too feel the criticisms of Hathaway specifically this season and "winner reactions" in general has been way out of proportion and rather nasty. Notice how it is almost always woman who get attacked in this fashion (Hathaway, Winslet, Taylor Swift...)? Rather than blowing this particular cultural nastiness into ever greater proportions, I wish pundits would act to put a damper on this phenomenon; which, to their credit, Kris and Guy have.
February 27, 2013 at 7:23PM ESTThe Dude No one is criticizing Hathaway for not looking surprised. She's being criticized because her speeches look insincere and falsely humble.
February 27, 2013 at 8:54PM ESTDanny The collective ganging up on Hathaway that is going on right now is as insightful and sincere as any junior high school mean girls and hangers on ganging up against the typical victim of choice. Again and again I have seen how certain types of basically decent if slightly awkward people, usually women but not only, are targeted for unceasing ever escalating snide abuse. It's reprehensible whether it happens in school, the office or in the "celebrity culture". Hathaway specifically doesn't need me to defend her, I'm just disgusted with the general collective behavior.
February 27, 2013 at 9:44PM ESTAmerican Jedi
February 27, 2013 at 3:06PM EST Reply to CommentMy other two cents: Skyfall was a very good night at the movies but I didn't think it was any better than the nine movies that got nominated. I can't view its omission as a symptom that anything is wrong. I don't think it would be very honest of the Academy to keep gerry-mandering the Best Pic nominating system until it finally strikes just the right balance to get an action blockbuster on the list. I love that genre and I like that the current system at least makes it more like that a movie like that will get in (whereas it was super-unlikely back when they limited it to 5 films), but it doesn't seem right to try to "fix" rules to ensure that one will get in. At least in my opinion.
Matt Skyfall was better than Les Mis, though I think the other 8 nominees are all better than Skyfall, so I don't have a problem with it missing BP.
February 27, 2013 at 4:58PM ESTLevi
February 27, 2013 at 4:04PM EST Reply to CommentI agree completely! The "let's fix it" people will always, no matter what, be with us. Unfortunately.
Kristopher Tapley
February 27, 2013 at 6:55PM EST Reply to CommentI think some of you may be missing the point Greg is making about the Best Picture voting process, which is less about personal preference and opinion than it is the Academy's ultimate goal by expanding the field.
There is a reason AMPAS governors are talking currently about going back to five nominees. It's because this experiment keeps yielding nominees like "Amour" and "Beasts of the Southern Wild," which for cinephiles like us is great. But the Academy was going for a broader audience and a film like "Skyfall" is the kind they would have hoped would find traction. It didn't. So, as Greg shrewdly notes, the system isn't "working."
And take umbrage by my mentioning those two films, which clearly I loved, if you must. But they were the first two off the tongue of a member very aware of these discussions when I had a chat about it a few weeks back.
This isn't about whether Greg thinks "Skyfall" deserved to be in the line-up or whether you think it didn't have a place there. It's about a certain coveted balance that hasn't been struck quite yet.
Now, if you want to argue whether that SHOULD be the goal, well, that's a different discussion entirely. But this is a shrewd point about an inside issue, not a personal opinion on whether a James Bond film "deserved" to be a nominee.
The Dude Going back to 5 isn't changing that; if anything, they should go back to the system they used in 2009/2010. In a system that overvalues #1 votes, blockbusters won't have much of a chance.
February 27, 2013 at 8:39PM ESTKristopher Tapley It's not about changing that by going back to five. It's about admitting that defeat and moving on, which is what is being discussed.
February 27, 2013 at 9:23PM ESTKristopher Tapley And it didn't work for them (the way they wanted) in 09/10 either.
February 27, 2013 at 9:24PM ESTThe Dude Really? In 2009 Up and District 9 (and The Blind Side, I guess) are big hits that almost certainly wouldn't be nominated if there were only 5, plus they had Avatar and IB.
February 27, 2013 at 11:44PM ESTIn 2010, Inception and possibly Toy Story 3 would be left out, and if not them, then it would be True Grit and Black Swan, that were big hits as well.
And this year the combined gross of the BP nominees is probably a record for a year that doesn't have a James Cameron movie.
So, I confess I am at a loss to understand the Academy's complaints. Frankly, I'm not sure they know what they want as well.
Kristopher Tapley No Star Trek. No Skyfall. No Dark Knight Rises. These are the sorts they were after. It's not just box office. No brands have hit, either. It's more nuanced than simply money.
February 28, 2013 at 2:26AM ESTprettok If there were only five nominees, Amour and Beasts STILL would have been nominated, but box office hits Django and Les Miz would not. The academy is nuts to try to change it back. People are never going to vote for brands or sequels. The current system at least allows popular quality studio product to be part of the contest. Otherwise it will be just like the 2000s, where Oscar season was dominated by discussions of such cultural phenomena as Babel, Milk and Capote...and NOBODY IN AMERICA CARED!
February 28, 2013 at 6:30PM ESTKristopher Tapley I wouldn't be so sure about either. Though I do have an inkling Amour might have made the cut.
March 1, 2013 at 8:30PM ESTEllsworth
February 27, 2013 at 7:24PM EST Reply to Comment'Argo pulled off a historical comeback' .....when you going to give up that song? Argo won every precursor award. I hardly think it was a comeback
Kristopher Tapley Four films have won Best Picture without having a Best Director nomination. It was a comeback. And it was historical. By definition.
February 27, 2013 at 7:43PM ESTVince Smetana
February 27, 2013 at 9:03PM EST Reply to CommentSome believe that Argo wouldn't have gotten into a field of five. I don't. But if would be a shame for the AMPAS to go back down to five. Things are so much more interesting. If they had the 2009/2010 system, I believe the master or skyfall would have gotten in. Maybe even flight. Moonrise kingdom. Still, other than the master, the other three did well at the box office.
Aaron
February 27, 2013 at 11:46PM EST Reply to CommentRegardless of whether they go back to five nominees or keep their current system, picking the "best films of the year" will always be a precarious and divisive subject. Sometimes, the five best picture nominees are superb (the most recent being the slam-dunk nominees of Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood. Not a stinker among them, in my opinion). Then oftentimes you get The Reader and Frost/Nixon. Best Picture really is a crapshoot.
Personally, I thought this year's slate of best picture nominees were astounding. It really is terrific that films like Amour and Beasts of the Southern Wild have that distinction at honor, even if they are not box office smashes. At the very least, it gives them exposure to the general public and brings more people to see these great works. And even though I wouldn't have voted for Argo, its win gives hope that a film CAN win best picture without a best director combination, therefore giving us some sort of suspense and newfound precedence that a film can still triumph without having a required best director nomination.
Ben M.
February 28, 2013 at 12:26PM EST Reply to CommentGreg, about the release date point, Hurt Locker actually released in June.
Anyway as far as the BP expansion category goes, I liked the 10 nominee system, and felt the academy didn't give it enough time to play out (I would say 5 years would be needed to give a full picture as to how the system was working, and I have no problem with a pop blockbuster like Skyfall or even The Blind Side getting in because with 10 nominees there should be room 1 or 2 nominees that are more "audience favorites" in addition to the critical faves); frankly I could have told when the 5% system was announced that it would hurt blockbusters more than indies.
Actually, if it were up to me, I think the academy should have a 10 nominee category, and embrace the all-inclusiveness of their BP category (unlike the Globes, all films eligible for general oscars can compete for BP) and eliminate the animated, doc, and FL categories (perhaps allowing for a honorary Oscar for a truly outstanding film in one of those groups that was snubbed, like the one given to The Bicycle Thief before there was a FL category). But, I do think the academy going back to five is more likely than going back to ten, and even if the animated feature category was almost cut when BP was expanded, I don't see them eliminating doc or FL (partly because of the legit reason that indie studios often need the marketing of a nom or win in those categories to even sell those films to arthouse audiences).